Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Kaoiwas asked in another thread about dualism. To be honest, I don't have a complete understanding of the subject, only what it means to me. I equate it with black/white thinking which may or may not be correct. To get the discussion started, below is one definition of dualism. Is this correct in your mind? And is dualism a good thing or a bad thing?

"Dualism can mean the tendency of humans to perceive and understand the world as being divided into just two categories. In this sense, it is dualistic when one perceives a tree as a thing separate from everything surrounding it, or when one perceives a "self" that is distinct from the rest of the world. In traditions such as Zen, a key to enlightenment is "overcoming" this sort of dualism, without merely substituting it with monism or pluralism.

In orthodox Indian philosophy, on the other hand, monism is explicitly affirmed by advaita vedanta, while it is rejected in favor of the dualism or pluralism of Dvaita; other schools, such as Vishishtadvaita and bhedabheda try to find routes in between.

The Yin-Yang symbolizes the duality in nature and all things in Taoist philosophy.The opposition and combination of the universe's two basic principles of Yin and Yang is a large part of Taoist philosophy. Some of the common associations with Yang and Yin, respectively, are: male and female, light and dark, active and passive, motion and stillness. Taoists believe that neither side is more important or better than the other; indeed, neither can exist without the other, as they are equal aspects of the whole. They are ultimately an artificial distinction based on our perceptions, so it is only our perception of them that really changes.

The complementary aspects of masculinity and femininity are revered by certain Neo-pagan religions."

This point can to be taken further and applied to oneness and separatness. People will value oneness as more important and more real then separatness which shows the dualistic nature of their thought. Oneness should be valued equally as separatness. Separatness is often seen as a bad thing in these forums.

Oneness would not appear so appealing if it were not for separatness, just as white would not be so appealing if it were not for black.

Of course this itself has an underlying oneness/unity theme to it which shows the circles one travels through when playing the language game.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. I want to say before we get too deep into this, that I am admitting that I am not that "hip" on this subject so please excuse any miscues.

Oneness should be valued equally as separatness. Separatness is often seen as a bad thing in these forums.

That is the dilemma of humanity, it seems to me. We view ourselves as seperate, but we have far more in common than not! The way I see it, this ego..this illusion of seperateness is some sort of game we (God) play to amuse ourselves throughout eternity. The danger lies in taking our roles too seriously. Maybe that's where the court jester comes into play?

Of course this itself has an underlying oneness/unity theme to it which shows the circles one travels through when playing the language game.

Is it truly or a circle or is it a spiral? And where would one ideally be located within this model? Personally, I would say as close to the center of the vortex as possible. In the exact center, one would experience a balance of the opposing forces..the peace that surpasseth understanding..the calm within the storm. Thoughts/feelings?

I like the circle idea because it has no beginning or end. You notice the direction his finger is moving in. I think its a circle. That's what happens when you think about this too much

I too see it as a bit of a game. At least something that isn't serious. What you said is like the hindu idea of the world as play, that god (out of boredom), tricks himself into believing he is a separate ego and expresses himself as all our different forms.

I've discussed quite a bit about dualism, so I'll use a previous post as an example:

The following are three examples of how our suffering and negativity stems from attachment to the our intellect/time-bound psyche which is inherently dualistic:

-Energy _____ Zero-Infinity-Totality ______ Energy+

Inner peace comes from Totality as in Neutrality of both polarities? In other words, from no-attachment to either side of opposing ends or polarities? Free of resistance, which is in itself merely a negative form of attachment.

-Pain ______ Inner-Peace/Stillness ______ Pleasure+

Pain is inevitable as long as you are identified with your mind, and will be subject to the constant oscillations between the duality that is inherent in the egoic-consciousness. When one is centered in Stillness, they transcend the dualistic prisons that once plagued them in their spiritual disease of mind-identification. This is the essence of an enlightened reality.

-Past _______ Present-Here-Now _______ Future+

All negativity stems from the time-bound, dualistic mind and denial of the eternal present. Unease, anxiety, tension, stress, worry ? all forms of fear ? are caused by too much future, and not enough presence. Guilt, regret, resentment, grievances, sadness, bitterness, and all forms of nonforgiveness are caused by too much past, and not enough presence.

When one forms an attachment to either end of such spectrums?They are already in motion to move to and fro, like emotional yo-yos. It is like a pendulum that swings back and forth between unconscious pain and unsustainable pleasure. Only when the pendulum become Still, can the enlightened reality be experienced that lies within the transcendental middle-way as the Buddha taught.

But I should clarify: although the mind is inherently dualistic, duality itself isn't inherently 'bad' [it can serve practical purposes] - it is the attachment, identification and clinginess to such, that creates suffering, that is the true culprit.

More examples:

-Reality is this ______Reality Is______ Reality is that+

-I am bad_______I Am_______I am good+

-This is bad_____This Is_____This is good+

I Am exists prior to I am this or that; Reality Is exists prior to reality is this or that... and so on.

--------------------Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

The pendulum is always moving. It is never still. Stillness itself is an illusion one gets attached to. Nothing is permanent. Go with the yoyo. Accept it. Yoyos rule. I used to have one with lights that flash when its spinning.

Attachment to either side or the other is what moves the pendulum in the first place; end attachment to such polarities, and we have inner-peace; hence the pendulum stops. Psychological time stops.

Stillness itself is an illusion one gets attached to.

It sounds as if you are speaking of the most literal sense of the word, which I am not. I am speaking what what results when there IS no attachment; Stillness, Peace. Hence, if one is getting attached to what once percieves as 'Stillness' - it is not even stillness in the first place - just another form of noise; attachment.

Nothing is permanent.

All the more reason not to develop attachment, yes?

Go with the yoyo. Accept it. Yoyos rule. I used to have one with lights that flash when its spinning.

--------------------Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Attachment is in trying to hold onto one extreme of the pendulum when it can't be held. Attachment doesn't cause the pendulum to move, it always was moving and always will move. Non-attachment does not cause it to stop. Non-attachment accepts the movement, the highs and lows.

Do you understand the correlation between the pendulum and psychological time? I am speaking of inward pendulum, the inward movement as Krishnamurti would put it.

Attachment doesn't cause the pendulum to move, it always was moving and always will move.

There always was the outward movement, and yes there will always be.Again, I am speaking of the inward movement which man has created [ego] that has become the source of conflict. Attachment is an inward movement, and this movement pushes the inward pendulum, and so forth...

--------------------Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

To understand the concept of psychological time, I strongly suggest you read the thread: Roots of Psychological Conflict.

Here is a small excerpt:

K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically. You understand?

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause, the origin of man?s misery?

DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose, but he misused it.

K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I must have time.

DB: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly?

K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that the cause of man?s confusion ? introducing time as a means of becoming, and becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?

DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn?t do that, the whole structure would collapse.

K: That?s it.

DB: But I don?t know whether there is not some other cause.

K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I am not talking theoretically, personally. But to me the idea of tomorrow doesn?t exist psychologically ? that is, time as a movement, either inwardly or outwardly.

DB: You mean psychological time?

K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now, if psychological time doesn?t exist, then there is no conflict, there is no ?me?, no ?I?, which is the origin of conflict. Outwardly, technologically man has moved, evolved.

The book: "The Ending of Time" by Dr. David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti goes very, very in depth into this subject - I recommend it to you, and everybody else here.

--------------------Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

I understand the idea of psychological time causing the conflict of ego, but I'm still not sure of this inward/outward concept and how it relates to the pendulum.

Do you mean the inward movement of the pendulum coming back down from an end? I would have thought it was this movement that always existed, as it is the natural force of gravity that pulls it down. The outward movement is a consequence of the inward movement and people will try to hold onto an extreme by way of an outward force, forcing the pendulum higher, staying in that extreme longer. That's the way I understand the pendulum analogy but I think you're still talking about something else.

In order to be one with something you have to separate your conscious from the mind right? If that's the case, then if you are able to come back from it, were you ever completely separated from the mind in the first place?

--------------------The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.

No you would never be separate from anything.You would not want to separate consciousness from your mind, the mind is also 'what is'. You would rather let go of the habit of primary identification with mind. Let go of boundaries.

What happens when you go back to your mind again, is not that your consciousness is returning back into your head, but rather that you become more dense.

To understand this one must unthink the notion of Cartesian space. This notion of 3 dimensions (plus time) is what locks us in our current dualistic thinking anyway.

This is where David Bohm's ideas of the implicate order enters. His thoughts around this new concept of order is so powerful, that I do not think any really deep physical theory can be developed without building upon this idea.

David Bohm had powerful feelings of flow as a child which inspired him to later develop the notion of the implicate order.The implicate order is constantly unfolded into the explicate order, which we percieve as Cartesian space, whereas the explicate order enfolds into the implicate again. Bohm compare this to a whirl in the river; the whirl is an explicate order manifistation and can be measured (i.e. it rotates with a certain speed, it has a certain diameter etc..) The water that upholds the whirl is constantly unfolding into the whirl, for so in the next moment to enfold back into the river.

We can look upon our selves as whirls, but we are also the river. So instead of looking at subject-object and relative relationships (which is only obtained by comparing your whirl to other whirls and building a relative map of internal relationships), one can become aware of an overarching level of process, which generates the whirl-world.

This can be likened to Plato's cave metaphor. He asks the question of whether one who has seen the overarching reality would be more able to understand the shadow-world after seeing the light that creates them, than the one that has never seen the light, but is skilled, having spent his entire life observing shadow-movements.

Anyway, we are after all humans and we are also our bodies. I do not think the ultimate goal is to become one with the river, a river without whirls isn't beautiful. I rather think there is a movement between becoming one and breaking out, enfoldment and unfoldment, like the needle of a sewing machine going up and down making the cosmic weave. This cosmic pulse is also reflected in the individuals life in certain cycles.

But what am I rambling about! I think I may have gotten sidetracked

--------------------There are no differences between men and gods,
one blends softly causal into the other.
-Frank Herbert, Dune.

I liked your post! Especially the whirl/river analogy, I think it does a great job of illustrating the importance of negative space in addition to positive space.. or no-thing in addition to some-thing.

The meaning is constantly unfolded into the unmeaning which is what gives us our reality, while at the same time the unmeaning enfolds into the meaning.

Unmeaning into the meaning... hmm.

Let me try to make an example. The meaning for air is to breath, otherwise if you took away that meaning there would be no meaning for air which is impossible because air exist and there has to be a meaning for it.

But yeah. If I was to come back to my mind there would be more obstacles and things to de-create peace. I believe I understand now

--------------------The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.